Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph leading on May’s TV Corbyn debate plan

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph leading on May’s TV Corbyn debate plan

This reminds me very much Tony Blair in the period leading up to the Iraq War. That, it will be recalled, saw massive demonstrations and Commons revolts but in the end the UK joined the US in going to war.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    First!
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    Second like PM May in a debate!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    FPT:

    So .. has anyone dissected the May Letter to let us remainers understand why its full of lies.. Naah thought not.. its just a case of Little Englander/zenophobic mentality.

    Agreed.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,240
    edited November 2018
    Second, like Remain...

    Edit; or fourth, in a two way fight...!
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Mortimer said:

    Second, like Remain...

    Hmmm... As good at counting as the ERG! :smile:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?

    Now don't go and try confusing it all with reasonable logic!
  • If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?

    See the Telegraph headline below the main story.

    I think Mrs May has a point.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,157
    edited November 2018
    FTPT

    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our governments have mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?

    See the Telegraph headline below the main story.

    I think Mrs May has a point.
    Whereas BoJo's strapline above is utter vacuous bollocks.
  • Well, good on her for taking up the cause and trying her darndest to persuade people. Amusing to see those who formerly criticised her for not engaging with the public now criticising her for doing so.

    Admittedly it probably won't work - MPs seem determined to turn the Brexit mistake into an unnecessary Brexit disaster - but she deserves a hell of a lot of credit for trying.
  • Whereas BoJo's strapline above is utter vacuous bollocks.

    That's hardly news!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,562
    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    Whereas BoJo's strapline above is utter vacuous bollocks.

    That's hardly news!
    No - fair point.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    edited November 2018
    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,122

    If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?

    See the Telegraph headline below the main story.

    I think Mrs May has a point.
    Certainly she has. But I don't think this will cut any ice at Westminster.
  • GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
  • I am sulking. Why didn't I get a letter from Mrs May?
  • DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Whether it happens or not is sort of irrelevant - it just gets to story off the detail and the Tory divisions and puts pressure on Corbyn.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,684

    Well, good on her for taking up the cause and trying her darndest to persuade people. Amusing to see those who formerly criticised her for not engaging with the public now criticising her for doing so.

    Admittedly it probably won't work - MPs seem determined to turn the Brexit mistake into an unnecessary Brexit disaster - but she deserves a hell of a lot of credit for trying.

    Indeed. But where are the Cabinet? This is like the GE all over again. Mrs May does not need to persuade those who like/are sympathetic to her.
  • I am sulking. Why didn't I get a letter from Mrs May?

    She should have used WhatsApp
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Yes, in reference to your last paragraph the problem is Corbyn is not presenting an alternative policy. He will be picking holes in the plan May is presenting.

    I actually think this strategy by the PM is a political boomerang that will come back and hurt her cause. Desperate and Weak!
  • What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,562

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
  • DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Theresa May is the type of person you could put in a senior back office technical role but not put in front of clients. She is not comfortable in her own skin and does not induce confidence in others. Her own MPs overvalue the technical ability because most of them cannot do that. Unless they have a leader that is comfortable on TV and can sell their policies they are stuffed. She can't do that.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    edited November 2018

    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
    Logically, he can retort why didn't she debate him in the 2017 GE an election she claimed was about Brexit until she failed to win outright? If she wants a debate now on Brexit, will she commit herself to a debate at GE 20XX. This is not political al a carte!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,513
    edited November 2018

    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
    Logically, he can retort why didn't she debate him in the 2017 GE? If she wants a debate now on Brexit will she commit herself to a debate at GE 20XX. This is not political al a carte!
    Easy to bat that one off - why is Corbyn playing party-political games with the country's future on this crucial issue?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,562

    DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Whether it happens or not is sort of irrelevant - it just gets to story off the detail and the Tory divisions and puts pressure on Corbyn.
    Fair enough but it won't work. One side is a completely incoherent mess. And the other is only the opposition!
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085

    DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Theresa May is the type of person you could put in a senior back office technical role but not put in front of clients. She is not comfortable in her own skin and does not induce confidence in others. Her own MPs overvalue the technical ability because most of them cannot do that. Unless they have a leader that is comfortable on TV and can sell their policies they are stuffed. She can't do that.
    I actually thought the radio phone in exposed this weakness on Friday, she did not look in command of what she was saying. She lingered and waffled when pressed on Brexit.
  • Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.
  • GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    A civilian water supply which can be significantly disrupted by membership or non membership of a set of treaties is not normal or efficient, it is a grotesque dereliction of national security. That said, it sounds like utter piffle. Just order more to tide us over.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,562

    DavidL said:

    On the positive side May has finally realised that it is an important part of her job as PM to lead and persuade. She has really been putting herself about over the last week or so trying to make her case.

    On the negative side she is still pretty crap at persuading people of anything. She is also useless at building a team, getting a consistent line to take, making good choices of people for positions, exercising judgment, negotiating, preparing for people not agreeing with her etc etc.

    From Corbyn's point of view I see very little upside in this. He is thick and ignorant. He depends on his gut for his view of the world and it is not in alignment with the vast majority of his party on this. He really doesn't do detail. Labour's 6 tests are so ridiculous that even May could take them apart. Her real battle is with her own party. Why would Corbyn not want to keep it that way?

    Not going to happen.

    Theresa May is the type of person you could put in a senior back office technical role but not put in front of clients. She is not comfortable in her own skin and does not induce confidence in others. Her own MPs overvalue the technical ability because most of them cannot do that. Unless they have a leader that is comfortable on TV and can sell their policies they are stuffed. She can't do that.
    She was actually reasonably effective as Home Secy, principally because she was quite skilled at keeping out of the news, off the TV, making bland and meaningless comments, etc etc. None of that transferred well to No. !0.
  • DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085

    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
    Logically, he can retort why didn't she debate him in the 2017 GE? If she wants a debate now on Brexit will she commit herself to a debate at GE 20XX. This is not political al a carte!
    Easy to bat that one off - why is Corbyn playing party-political games with the country's future on this crucial issue?
    I am opposed to Corbyn but it looks a little weak to try and get the LOTO to debate you so you can debate a policy your own party is split on and many do not support! Why does she not just speak to the country directly about the deal? She might not screw that up! If she is trying to communicate to the country and wants them to influence MPs, why is she against a peoples vote? Even the current Labour leadership could draw blood on the incoherent strategy May has adopted of late.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    I wonder what was the most recent day on which we didn't discuss Brexit at all on PB. Maybe in early 2016, just before the referendum was announced. As I recall it wasn't at all certain that there would be a vote that year until Cameron announced it. It could have been much later, if at all.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085

    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Brexit is the equivalent of Hitler's "Nero Decree" when it comes to the political and trading relationships of this country.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,122

    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
    Logically, he can retort why didn't she debate him in the 2017 GE? If she wants a debate now on Brexit will she commit herself to a debate at GE 20XX. This is not political al a carte!
    Easy to bat that one off - why is Corbyn playing party-political games with the country's future on this crucial issue?
    Not a very convincing argument when you consider the party political games the Tories have been playing with the country's future since 2015. No other party has made the country hostage to its internal divisions in such a way.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846

    What is the purpose? To drive a wedge between Corbyn and his MPs?

    Won't he just point out his party is united in opposition to her feeble deal? May's is the one that is all over the place. Then she is immediately on the back foot.

    What could possily go wong.....

    The purpose is presumably to show how incoherent the opposition to her deal is, and Corbyn is a useful proxy for a large chunk of the incoherence. Seems reasonable enough, although possibly high risk. But then, what has she got to lose?

    On the other side, Corbyn will look frit if he refuses.
    Logically, he can retort why didn't she debate him in the 2017 GE? If she wants a debate now on Brexit will she commit herself to a debate at GE 20XX. This is not political al a carte!
    Easy to bat that one off - why is Corbyn playing party-political games with the country's future on this crucial issue?
    I am opposed to Corbyn but it looks a little weak to try and get the LOTO to debate you so you can debate a policy your own party is split on and many do not support! Why does she not just speak to the country directly about the deal? She might not screw that up! If she is trying to communicate to the country and wants them to influence MPs, why is she against a peoples vote? Even the current Labour leadership could draw blood on the incoherent strategy May has adopted of late.
    A little weak? This desperate last stand stuff. Corbyn should welcome Mays conversion, say that he’s ready to debate her whenever she calls the election and state that he doesn’t expect to wait long.
  • AndyJS said:

    I wonder what was the most recent day on which we didn't discuss Brexit at all on PB. Maybe in early 2016, just before the referendum was announced. As I recall it wasn't at all certain that there would be a vote that year until Cameron announced it. It could have been much later, if at all.

    When will be the next thread when it isn’t discussed? 2040?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    Maybe the letters will go in - to spare her the ordeal...
  • DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Why? We should be able to go on a war footing at minutes/hours notice. Why can't we go on a skighlyy different trading arrangements footing at a couple of years notice?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,429

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    A civilian water supply which can be significantly disrupted by membership or non membership of a set of treaties is not normal or efficient, it is a grotesque dereliction of national security. That said, it sounds like utter piffle. Just order more to tide us over.
    Apparently the things in question are volatile and can't be stored, or at least that's what I've been told: IANAE.

    But it's not the obviously-dangerous volatile/medically necessary stuff that's the problem: we can fly that stuff in via the military. It's the thousands of other bits and bobs that's the difficult bit: what do you do when *everything* is one or two or three days late, all at once. It'll sort itself out eventually, but for a bit there's going to be some disruption that (if planning for a no-deal was done over the past two years) was entirely avoidable.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Logged on to to Twitter.

    Saw the continuity Blairite smug-o-trons (Waugh, Stephenkb, Rentoul) confidently predicting Corbyn would NEVER agree to a debate because he's a coward.

    Since those three have never knowingly been accidentally insightful about UK politics since Blair left office 11 years ago, I immediately knew that Corbyn would accept.

    Two and a half minutes later, Sky confirms it.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    My prediction is that Corbyn should wipe the floor with May, comfortably. Especially when she decides to demonstrate her grasp of "detail" whilst Corbyn is making powerful emotional pleas about Tory auterity, poverty and their general total failure to do anything except botch Brexit for two years.
  • Logged on to to Twitter.

    Saw the continuity Blairite smug-o-trons (Waugh, Stephenkb, Rentoul) confidently predicting Corbyn would NEVER agree to a debate because he's a coward.

    Since those three have never knowingly been accidentally insightful about UK politics since Blair left office 11 years ago, I immediately knew that Corbyn would accept.

    Two and a half minutes later, Sky confirms it.

    Are you sure he's not sending Starmer instead? As in someone who knows what the hell they are talking about? Jezza will just rant about food banks and letters from Doreen who used to be a nurse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,098

    If she is trying to appeal to the people of the UK, why is she not offering a peoples vote?

    Maybe she is.

    What else can be the purpose of going over the heads of her MPs?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Can kicking is written into A50. The EU won't negotiate the future trading relationship while we are still a member. The withdrawal agreement is only supposed to lay out the framework.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,098

    Logged on to to Twitter.

    Saw the continuity Blairite smug-o-trons (Waugh, Stephenkb, Rentoul) confidently predicting Corbyn would NEVER agree to a debate because he's a coward.

    Since those three have never knowingly been accidentally insightful about UK politics since Blair left office 11 years ago, I immediately knew that Corbyn would accept.

    Two and a half minutes later, Sky confirms it.

    Are you sure he's not sending Starmer instead? As in someone who knows what the hell they are talking about? Jezza will just rant about food banks and letters from Doreen who used to be a nurse.
    For a country bored of Brexit, that would be a relief, rather than the technical minutiae of the backstop.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,996

    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    What difference is the additional 26 weeks going to make? :p
  • I am sulking. Why didn't I get a letter from Mrs May?

    She should have used WhatsApp
    Or Tinder :)
  • Foxy said:

    Logged on to to Twitter.

    Saw the continuity Blairite smug-o-trons (Waugh, Stephenkb, Rentoul) confidently predicting Corbyn would NEVER agree to a debate because he's a coward.

    Since those three have never knowingly been accidentally insightful about UK politics since Blair left office 11 years ago, I immediately knew that Corbyn would accept.

    Two and a half minutes later, Sky confirms it.

    Are you sure he's not sending Starmer instead? As in someone who knows what the hell they are talking about? Jezza will just rant about food banks and letters from Doreen who used to be a nurse.
    For a country bored of Brexit, that would be a relief, rather than the technical minutiae of the backstop.
    Probably true :lol:
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    I'm not sure whether Trump's strategy of pressuring the Saudi's to reduce the price of oil is a good or bad idea.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,679
    AndyJS said:

    I'm not sure whether Trump's strategy of pressuring the Saudi's to reduce the price of oil is a good or bad idea.

    Trump has a strategy?
  • DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Why? We should be able to go on a war footing at minutes/hours notice. Why can't we go on a skighlyy different trading arrangements footing at a couple of years notice?
    If you're going to war against basically all your trading partners at the same time then the problem is probably strategy-related
  • MJWMJW Posts: 550
    Well I suppose one upside of having a debate is we might actually find out what Labour's Brexit policy is.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885
    Maybe May is planning to ambush Corbyn into backing a people's vote live on TV.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,429
    AndyJS said:

    I'm not sure whether Trump's strategy of pressuring the Saudi's to reduce the price of oil is a good or bad idea.

    Weirdly, I think it's a good idea.
  • RobD said:

    Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Can kicking is written into A50. The EU won't negotiate the future trading relationship while we are still a member. The withdrawal agreement is only supposed to lay out the framework.
    I'm not sure that's right - Article 50 is pretty vague, the process proposed when it was pulled didn't necessarily have to be how it went down.

    But it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what the voters think, and the voters generally think there's going to be a deal and it'll be over. That's probably the only thing they *do* like about the deal. But in fact it's just the start of two years of salami-slicing humiliations. That sounds like a good thing for Corbyn to get TMay, with her excellent glass grasp of detail, to explain to them.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    I'm not sure whether Trump's strategy of pressuring the Saudi's to reduce the price of oil is a good or bad idea.

    Weirdly, I think it's a good idea.
    Interesting view.
  • Maybe May is planning to ambush Corbyn into backing a people's vote live on TV.

    I think Corbyn's line will hold, politicians often make preposterous claims about renegotiating things and it never seems to go wrong for them, as long as they don't accidentally get elected and have to actually do the renegotiation.
  • Deary me. May made a massive tactical error by flat our refusing to do debates in 2017, rather than the Cameron tactic of playing hardball while showing some skirt so in the end he got what he wanted.

    Now May has gone the other way and we are going to have a debate when she is on dodgy ground and most people are just pissed off with wall to wall Brexit arguing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    MJW said:

    Well I suppose one upside of having a debate is we might actually find out what Labour's Brexit policy is.

    Dream on!
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,745
    If this TV debate happens it will surely have a big impact on the next GE.

    If Corbyn wins, it will confirm to Con MPs that they absolutely have to ditch May pre GE.

    However if May were to win (and in particular if she wins well) it may well be enough for Con MPs to think it's best to stick with May for the next GE. It would also give May a lot more confidence going into GE TV debates.
  • Deary me. May made a massive tactical error by flat our refusing to do debates in 2017, rather than the Cameron tactic of playing hardball while showing some skirt so in the end he got what he wanted.

    Now May has gone the other way and we are going to have a debate when she is on dodgy ground and most people are just pissed off with wall to wall Brexit arguing.

    I'm not so sure. Enough people will realise this is the moment of truth on all this. Plus if Jezza really does agree, he has a hell of a lot of training and homework to do in next two weeks or so.
  • Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
  • Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
    Hmmm. Again I have to demur. She will attempt to reach out to people who are sick of all this, bored with it, want any solution, want a fix that leaves food on shelves etc etc. There are a lot of people like this, something that social media doesn't fully reflect imho.

    Over the heads of her MPs, put pressure on them via the voters.


    It's a gamble, but a decent roll of the dice.
  • MikeL said:

    If this TV debate happens it will surely have a big impact on the next GE.

    If Corbyn wins, it will confirm to Con MPs that they absolutely have to ditch May pre GE.

    However if May were to win (and in particular if she wins well) it may well be enough for Con MPs to think it's best to stick with May for the next GE. It would also give May a lot more confidence going into GE TV debates.

    John McD will be lying awake tonight, wondering what is best to do...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,885

    Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
    Hmmm. Again I have to demur. She will attempt to reach out to people who are sick of all this, bored with it, want any solution, want a fix that leaves food on shelves etc etc. There are a lot of people like this, something that social media doesn't fully reflect imho.

    Over the heads of her MPs, put pressure on them via the voters.

    It's a gamble, but a decent roll of the dice.
    If opponents of the deal can get the message to stick that this isn't the end of it and means years more Brexit negotiations she won't be able to get away with that.
  • Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
    Hmmm. Again I have to demur. She will attempt to reach out to people who are sick of all this, bored with it, want any solution, want a fix that leaves food on shelves etc etc. There are a lot of people like this, something that social media doesn't fully reflect imho.

    Over the heads of her MPs, put pressure on them via the voters.

    It's a gamble, but a decent roll of the dice.
    If opponents of the deal can get the message to stick that this isn't the end of it and means years more Brexit negotiations she won't be able to get away with that.
    Maybe. Not an easy message to convey I would say. But we shall see shortly.
  • Deary me. May made a massive tactical error by flat our refusing to do debates in 2017, rather than the Cameron tactic of playing hardball while showing some skirt so in the end he got what he wanted.

    Now May has gone the other way and we are going to have a debate when she is on dodgy ground and most people are just pissed off with wall to wall Brexit arguing.

    There is no win for her. If Corbyn debates better than May - or even just better than expectations - he will look more prime ministerial and HER policy will be perceived as being even worse. If May debates better than Corbyn then it will just meet expectations and the policy will be ignored. The media will ensure that the debate is about them, not Brexit because that is what sells clicks/papers.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    Just what the world needs, another pointless conflict.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,371
    edited November 2018

    Maybe May is planning to ambush Corbyn into backing a people's vote live on TV.

    Thinking about it, it *could* be a way to set things up for a new *general election*. Imagine she wants to call one - which would make sense, since she doesn't have enough votes. If she does it right now it looks like a sign of chaos and weakness, but she could look kind-of badass if Corbyn stood there demanding a new general election and she came back with "OK then, fuck you, general election it is".

    Not really her style, I know, but that would give it even more impact...
  • DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Why? We should be able to go on a war footing at minutes/hours notice. Why can't we go on a skighlyy different trading arrangements footing at a couple of years notice?
    If you're going to war against basically all your trading partners at the same time then the problem is probably strategy-related
    But we're not going to war against basically all our trading partners, we're not even entering a trade embargo with any of them. We're simply adjusting our terms of trade somewhat.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,371
    edited November 2018

    DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Why? We should be able to go on a war footing at minutes/hours notice. Why can't we go on a skighlyy different trading arrangements footing at a couple of years notice?
    If you're going to war against basically all your trading partners at the same time then the problem is probably strategy-related
    But we're not going to war against basically all our trading partners, we're not even entering a trade embargo with any of them. We're simply adjusting our terms of trade somewhat.
    i'm not talking about smoothly renegotiating deals, which is what a "deal" outcome looks like. That would indeed be "simply adjusting our terms of trade somewhat", albeit for some very large values of "somewhat". I'm talking about effectively voiding, with no replacement in place, long-standing trade deals, not only with the EU, but of all the other countries the EU has trade deals with. This is such an epically brainless thing to do that no sensible previous government would make preparations on the basis that a future government would do it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,429
    Submitted without comment...

  • DavidL said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FTPT


    What is the worst 'no deal chaos' consequence? Is it anything you can spend £39 billion on?

    Apparently Michael Gove is convinced our drinking water will run out within days of "No Deal" as we won't be able to get chemicals to purify it?

    Yes it seems our government has mismanaged the country so badly that we even rely on other countries for the very water we need to live.

    Makes you wonder what the **** our governments have been doing for the past 40 years...
    They've been running a normal, efficient, globally integrated market economy. Works great as long as you don't go in for epic acts of self-harm like needlessly destroying your trading arrangements on a few weeks' notice.
    few= 102 weeks? Or in fact approximately 130 weeks from the referendum decision. How much longer does this government need to carry out minimal preparations?
    Preparations for destroying your trading arrangements? Don't do that, but if you absolutely have to then 3 to 5 years.
    Why? We should be able to go on a war footing at minutes/hours notice. Why can't we go on a skighlyy different trading arrangements footing at a couple of years notice?
    If you're going to war against basically all your trading partners at the same time then the problem is probably strategy-related
    But we're not going to war against basically all our trading partners, we're not even entering a trade embargo with any of them. We're simply adjusting our terms of trade somewhat.
    i'm not talking about smoothly renegotiating deals, which is what a "deal" outcome looks like. That would indeed be "simply adjusting our terms of trade somewhat", albeit for some very large values of "somewhat". I'm talking about effectively voiding, with no replacement in place, long-standing trade deals, not only with the EU, but of all the other countries the EU has trade deals with. This is such an epically brainless thing to do that no sensible previous government would make preparations on the basis that a future government would do it.
    If it was so brainless we shouldn't have had a referendum about it. But either way that doesn't address the fact that with a couple of years notice of an upcoming change we supposedly can't keep water flowing but we can supposedly mobilise for war at a moments notice?

    Cut the bullshit. Project Fear would be a lot more convincing if you didn't reach for blatant lies like that.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018
    I'm surprised nobody has opined yet that it'll be two Remainers, or Remainers In All But Name, preparing the way for, y'know, remaining.

    Corbyn is the one who's got more to lose. May is toast anyway. She isn't going to win the vote. At least she's learnt that starting a fight that everyone knows you will win by a country mile, as she did the 2017 election, can be stupid.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 24,664
    "Opinion The FT View
    UK’s gambling industry is dicing with young lives
    Online betting is growing fast; it should be treated like tobacco
    The editorial board"

    https://www.ft.com/content/4f1611ea-ef3d-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,426

    Deary me. May made a massive tactical error by flat our refusing to do debates in 2017, rather than the Cameron tactic of playing hardball while showing some skirt so in the end he got what he wanted.

    Now May has gone the other way and we are going to have a debate when she is on dodgy ground and most people are just pissed off with wall to wall Brexit arguing.

    There is no win for her. If Corbyn debates better than May - or even just better than expectations - he will look more prime ministerial and HER policy will be perceived as being even worse. If May debates better than Corbyn then it will just meet expectations and the policy will be ignored. The media will ensure that the debate is about them, not Brexit because that is what sells clicks/papers.
    In theory, exposing the emptiness of Labour's opposition is a great move. Normally Corbyn spouts his vacuous "Brexit for jobs" nonsense with impunity. In practice, the evidence suggests that while she's pretty good in the HoC, out in the real world she has the charisma of a whelk.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,426

    Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
    Hmmm. Again I have to demur. She will attempt to reach out to people who are sick of all this, bored with it, want any solution, want a fix that leaves food on shelves etc etc. There are a lot of people like this, something that social media doesn't fully reflect imho.

    Over the heads of her MPs, put pressure on them via the voters.

    It's a gamble, but a decent roll of the dice.
    Speaking as a Remainer who has grave doubts about the concept of a "People's Vote" I say let May get on with it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,429
    AndyJS said:

    "Opinion The FT View
    UK’s gambling industry is dicing with young lives
    Online betting is growing fast; it should be treated like tobacco
    The editorial board"

    https://www.ft.com/content/4f1611ea-ef3d-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57

    I find myself at a loss to know what to say here. This is a betting site and hence one in which money should occasionally be placed with a bookie in hope of profit. Yet the attitude of most people on here is that gambling is undesirable, unpleasant to view, and not something that should be done by children or poor people. If we disapprove of online betting, then...what are we doing here?
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018
    Dadge said:

    Corbyn should accept. This is excellent ground to fight on.

    This isn't entirely her fault, but the result is way worse than the status quo for remainers, and a total disappointment in all kinds of ways for leavers. And some of the ways it's terrible haven't yet been communicated, like the fact that having kicked most of the difficult parts down the road, including the zero-sum bits like fishing quotas, they now have a further two years of psycho-drama, but this time every member state has a veto.

    I guess part of what she's trying to do is to set the thing up as a Con-Lab argument rather than an internal Tory family feud, and it's possible that this will help her reduce Tory opposition when they have the vote. But the deal becoming slightly more likely to pass isn't necessarily bad for Labour, and being the representative of people who dislike this deal is a great gig, since it's basically everyone.

    Yes, I agree. May will argue her case that it's a good deal, something that about 20% or so of the country agree with her on. Corbyn can plausibly argue that her deal is the worst of all worlds and take up the mantle of the 60% or so who hate it from both the Remain and Leave sides of the argument without having to choose between either. It is indeed excellent ground on which Corbyn can take on May - a huge own goal for her.
    Hmmm. Again I have to demur. She will attempt to reach out to people who are sick of all this, bored with it, want any solution, want a fix that leaves food on shelves etc etc. There are a lot of people like this, something that social media doesn't fully reflect imho.

    Over the heads of her MPs, put pressure on them via the voters.

    It's a gamble, but a decent roll of the dice.
    Speaking as a Remainer who has grave doubts about the concept of a "People's Vote" I say let May get on with it.
    The only path to Remain that doesn't go through another referendum is if there's a GE in the near future and Labour backs Remain and then wins which seems highly unlikely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,604

    I am sulking. Why didn't I get a letter from Mrs May?

    She should have used WhatsApp
    She tried to contact me through Tinder
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,604

    I am sulking. Why didn't I get a letter from Mrs May?

    She should have used WhatsApp
    Or Tinder :)
    Damn it. There was I thinking I was first to a funny joke. And it turns out you've beaten me to it.

  • If it was so brainless we shouldn't have had a referendum about it. But either way that doesn't address the fact that with a couple of years notice of an upcoming change we supposedly can't keep water flowing but we can supposedly mobilise for war at a moments notice?

    Cut the bullshit. Project Fear would be a lot more convincing if you didn't reach for blatant lies like that.

    There was no referendum about leaving the EU without a deal. There was a referendum about leaving the EU, and the people advocating it said it would be the easiest deal in the world, and dismissed the idea of there being no deal as Project Fear.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,438
    edited November 2018
    I really can't see a Brexit debate where the two participants don't even take clear, distinctive positions from each other as being able to catch the public's attention. May's dead deal versus Labour's non existent Brexit policy. It's almost irrelevant as the public want neither.
  • I am not sure if Labour is the main problem, the Tory hardline will be furious and this may hasten the 48th letter.....plus as I said earlier May would rather have her teeth removed than do this ....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,604


    If it was so brainless we shouldn't have had a referendum about it. But either way that doesn't address the fact that with a couple of years notice of an upcoming change we supposedly can't keep water flowing but we can supposedly mobilise for war at a moments notice?

    Cut the bullshit. Project Fear would be a lot more convincing if you didn't reach for blatant lies like that.

    There was no referendum about leaving the EU without a deal. There was a referendum about leaving the EU, and the people advocating it said it would be the easiest deal in the world, and dismissed the idea of there being no deal as Project Fear.
    Also, we've signed literally dozens of free trade deals with other countries.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Opinion The FT View
    UK’s gambling industry is dicing with young lives
    Online betting is growing fast; it should be treated like tobacco
    The editorial board"

    https://www.ft.com/content/4f1611ea-ef3d-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57

    I find myself at a loss to know what to say here. This is a betting site and hence one in which money should occasionally be placed with a bookie in hope of profit. Yet the attitude of most people on here is that gambling is undesirable, unpleasant to view, and not something that should be done by children or poor people. If we disapprove of online betting, then...what are we doing here?
    Certainly the buzz I get when I lay JRM and Boris for next Tory leader on Betfair Exchange is like a heroin shot and I spend all day on the site and sometimes my week's wages are all gone backing and laying the various contenders and I have nothing left to spend on food. I am sure you fellow addicts understand? Even through we have to wait months or even years for a payout.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    Notch said:

    I'm surprised nobody has opined yet that it'll be two Remainers, or Remainers In All But Name, preparing the way for, y'know, remaining.

    Corbyn is the one who's got more to lose. May is toast anyway. She isn't going to win the vote. At least she's learnt that starting a fight that everyone knows you will win by a country mile, as she did the 2017 election, can be stupid.

    Certainly she has since been most careful to pick all her fights on weaker ground.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    Unless we as the audience actually have something to decide at the end of it, the debate would be as pointless as BBCQT. Or are we all expected to write to our MPs afterwards?
  • Everyone knows what Theresa May thinks about Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be exceptionally adroit not to reveal his thoughts on Brexit in a debate. He’ll win the debate and lose the politics as a result.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    AndyJS said:

    Just what the world needs, another pointless conflict.
    Ukraine should stop poking the bear; the Ukrainian vessels failed to stop when requested to do so in Russian territorial waters. There is now a vital bridge over the entrance to the Sea of Azov, linking the Russian territory of Crimea to the Russian mainland, which Russia needs to protect.
  • My prediction is that Corbyn should wipe the floor with May, comfortably. Especially when she decides to demonstrate her grasp of "detail" whilst Corbyn is making powerful emotional pleas about Tory auterity, poverty and their general total failure to do anything except botch Brexit for two years.

    I think that is spot on. The very real danger for May is she makes the mistake Clegg made in the Farage TV debate. She'll elevate Corbyn and just remorsely do detail which Corbyn blasts away on populist narrative. No floating voters watch and the entire thing is spun via instant internet polls who's panels however weighted are made up of double oddities. Folk who watch political debates and who immediately answer internet polls. It's a huge risk for her.
  • May has tried speaking to the voters - members of the house of commons - without success. She could try phoning their families to try to nag the MPs into supporting her. This national tour and talk of a TV debate just shouts out Desperation.

    It should be entertaining for PBers but who else will want to watch?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,831
    daodao said:

    AndyJS said:

    Just what the world needs, another pointless conflict.
    Ukraine should stop poking the bear; the Ukrainian vessels failed to stop when requested to do so in Russian territorial waters. There is now a vital bridge over the entrance to the Sea of Azov, linking the Russian territory of Crimea to the Russian mainland, which Russia needs to protect.
    "the Ukrainian vessels failed to stop when requested to do so in Russian territorial waters. "

    On what information do you base that? According to the BBC, the Sea of Azov is shared between Russia and Ukraine. The bridge itself is a geopolitical issue in several ways, one of which is that it bars ships over a certain size from entering the sea, meaning some Ukranian ports struggle.
This discussion has been closed.